September 20, 2006

THE UNINTERRUPTED SEQUENCE:

East and West at Arm's Length: A Conversation with Bernard Lewis (Bruce Cole, July 2006, Humanities)

Bruce Cole: Members of one culture are sometimes reluctant to understand enough about another culture, or even learn the other's language. What causes this?

Bernard Lewis: There have been many civilizations in the world, and the normal practice of civilizations has been to dismiss with contempt those outside. The world is divided into civilized people--that means us--and barbarians.

Cole: Us and them.

Lewis: Them. "Them" usually are regarded as barbarians. The Greeks and the Romans ruled the Middle East but did not bother to learn any of the languages.

Cole: [...] Why should we know about the Arab Middle Ages? Why should we know about the Ottoman Empire? What relevance does that have for us today?

Lewis: I think it's always important to understand both sides of a relationship. The relation between Christendom and the Islamic world begins with the advent of Islam in the seventh century. When Islam came into the world, the whole of the Middle East and North Africa were Christian. They were part of Christendom. So Islam first expanded--apart from Iran--largely into Christian territory and even into Europe. That started an ongoing relationship, which has continued ever since.

I would make the further point. This ongoing conflict between Christendom and Islam arises not so much from their differences as from their resemblances. There are many religions in the world and there are many civilizations in the world, but as far as I am aware, Christianity and Islam are the only two religions which claim to be the possessors of God's final and exclusive truth.

Most religions have a sort of "relativist approach." That's the term that is used by the Catholic Church to indicate disapproval, but I'm using it to indicate approval. The relativist view would be something like this: Just as men have invented different languages to talk to each other, so they've invented different religions to talk to God, and God understands all of them. Perhaps not all equally well, but he understands all of them.

There is an interesting passage in one of the sermons of Saint John Capistrano, a Franciscan. In one of his collected sermons, he says the Jews propagate this monstrous and absurd idea that everyone can be saved in his own religion. Now, Saint John Capistrano says many things about the Jews and the Muslims--both of whom he disliked intensely--but on that particular one he's right. The Talmud says the righteous of all faiths have a place in heaven. That's not the Christian or the Muslim point of view.

We--whichever the "we" may be--we are the fortunate recipients of God's final message to mankind. If you accept that message, you will be saved. If you don't accept it, then your religion is either incomplete and superseded or false-incomplete and superseded if it's previous, false if it's subsequent. Where you have two religions making the same claim with the same self-perception and the same geographical area, you get this uninterrupted sequence of jihad and crusade. But that, I think, is also some ground for hope. I tried to make this point at a conference in Morocco. The theme of the conference was: Is a dialog of civilizations possible? I tried to make the point that the conflicts have arisen from resemblances rather than from differences, and this should, with goodwill on both sides, make a dialog possible.

Cole: Is goodwill on both sides feasible?

Lewis: Goodwill on both sides is so far rather conspicuously lacking. But not entirely. I think there are people on both sides of goodwill. The late pope was trying to open a dialog with other religions. I don't know where the new one stands on this, but so far his utterances have been quite positive.

Cole: I think there are very few people who don't have strong opinions on Huntington's book, The Clash of Civilizations.

Lewis: As far as I'm concerned, what really matters is the clash between Christendom and Islam, which begins with the advent of Islam and is continued to the present day.

As I said before, there is the long history of jihad and crusade, attacking each other, invading each other.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 20, 2006 12:00 AM
Comments
The Talmud says the righteous of all faiths have a place in heaven. That's not the Christian . . . point of view.

That's not quite true. I'm not really sure exactly when Catholic theologicans developed the invisible/visible Church distinction, but it's been the standard view for more than a century at least, and certainly allows the righteous of other faiths a place in heaven -- even if it does it by sleight of hand by making them members of the Church.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at September 20, 2006 8:15 PM

Me likey Catholic theologicans. Whatever they is.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at September 20, 2006 8:16 PM

Jim, when I was in Catholic school, 1940-48, the Catechism stated quite bluntly that only Catholics could get into heaven no matter the exemplary life or good deeds of non-Catholics who were aware of the Catholic church, but chose not to convert.

Australian aborigines and others who were perhaps not aware of the Catholic church's lock on heaven, weren't addressed, so I can't remember if they stayed in a limbo-like place forever, or were given a free pass to pearly gates.

I remember this well because I was one of those non-Catholics and was pretty scared knowing my lot was eternal damnation. The Catechism has been softened since then, but I don't know just how it reads now.

Other than the little matter of my immortal soul, I loved school and the nuns who were wonderfully kind and gentle and I may say, even holy. Sorry not to be able to say the same about the arrogant popinjay priests.

Posted by: erp at September 21, 2006 12:02 PM

Everyone's got to accept Jesus when they meet Him in Heaven, no?

Posted by: oj at September 21, 2006 12:08 PM

The idea of the visible/invisible church also means that lots of church members (communicants?) are not going to heaven. I suspect it may have first been addressed by Augustine (in writing about the City of God v. the City of Man), but of course the Scriptural basis is quite clear in both the OT and the NT. The wanderers in the desert died there (save for Joshua and Caleb), and Jesus is most explicit in Matthew 7 about those who claim to be his, but are not.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 22, 2006 8:24 AM

Everyone's going, we're just not all getting in.

Posted by: oj at September 22, 2006 10:03 AM
« PENN NOT EQUAL TO PENN WARREN: | Main | NOW IS THE WINTER OF OUR CONTENT: »